Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2021 08 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes January 20, 2021 Page 3 of 6 Cooper asks for disclosures from the board members for any site visits, ex parte communications, and any conflicts of interest or required disclosures for the application. All Board members indicate they did not have any ex parte communications or any conflicts of interest for the application. Cooper asks the applicant if they are ready to proceed with the hearing. The applicant indicates they are ready to proceed with the hearing. Staff Report of Facts and Issues: Zuccaro informs the board that this application is a request for a variance from the Residential Low Density (R-L) minimum rear setback of twenty-five feet to allow a rear setback of twelve feet and ten inches for a covered deck. He shows the location by displaying aerial photos and reviews the background history of the property. This property is in the Mesa Point Subdivision and was built in 1984. In the presentation, the 70 ft minimum lot width is highlighted because staff is taking this into consideration in regards to their recommendations. This proposal meets the zoning standards except for the front lot standard. A setback variance request is required for the rear setback. He then shows the site plan and goes into further detail about the applicant's proposal. Stuart asks if it is true that the 60 ft is the height from the street. Zuccaro says that cul de sacs start narrow and widen out as you go further into the neighborhood. This lot starts at 60 ft so that narrows your buildable area. 60 or 70 ft would be required by zoning. The request is to allow a 12'-10" setback where 25' is required. The proposed deck would be in a similar location as the existing deck. The covered deck would be 43 ft wide and the depth would vary between 10-18 ft, approximately 560 sq ft. The roof height would be between 11'-3" and 10'-9." He concludes his presentation by reviewing the six variance criteria. The following indicates staff's analysis of each criteria: Criteria 1 - Criterion Met • The property is unique in that the narrow building envelop at the front of lot limits the depth of the backyard. It is also unique because the depth of the lot is less than most of the lots in the neighborhood and the existing deck is in the same location. Criteria 2 - Criterion Met • There are unusual circumstances because the cul-de-sac lots are unique in that most lots in the neighborhood are conforming. This lot's depth is also less than most lots in the neighborhood, including some of the cul de sac lots.